|

2008 Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition
 |  First place team Campbell University, alongside (l-r) Hon. Richard C. Tallman, Hon. Paul J. Kelly, Jr., and Hon. Theodore T. Jones, Jr.
|
Note: The 2009 Prince Evidence Competition will take place on April 2-4. Registration materials will be posted in the Fall as they become available.
On April 3 - April 5, 2008, Brooklyn Law School hosted the Twenty-Third Annual Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition. The competition honors the late Jerome Prince, renowned evidence scholar, teacher, and author of Prince on Evidence, who served as Dean of Brooklyn Law School from 1953-1971. Thirty-eight teams from around the country competed. The winners were:
First Place Team & Best Brief: Campbell University
Second Place Team: Seton Hall University
Second Place Brief: Southwestern Law School
Third Place Brief: University of California at Hastings
Best Oralist in the Preliminary Round: Holly Battersby, Michigan State University
Best Oralist in the Final Round: Walter S. Webster, Campbell University
Our proud tradition of attracting distinguished jurists to preside over the competition continued this year. The final round argument was held before the Honorable Theodore T. Jones Jr. of the New York State Court of Appeals, the Honorable Paul J. Kelly Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and the Honorable Richard C. Tallman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The issues argued arose in the context of a federal civil lawsuit against the American distributor of a stuffed plush toy shark manufactured abroad. The plaintiff, a young boy, received the shark as a holiday present; shortly thereafter he was diagnosed with irreversible brain damage. Diagnostic tests confirmed that his condition was the result exposure to a poisonous toxin. The suit against the American distributor was based upon its failure to warn or recall the toy shark, despite having been informed that the poisonous toxin was used in the manufacture of the shark. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after ruling that the only evidence offered to prove knowledge of the defect, as required by state law, was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari certifying the following questions:
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3):
- Does the interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) in Williamson v. United States preclude the admissibility in a civil case of a reliable collateral statement contained in the same narrative as statements that satisfy that rule's hearsay exception for declarations against interest?
- Are statements acknowledging criminal conduct contained in a personal letter per se inadmissible in a civil case if, after sending it, the writer commits suicide?
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), does a declarant's hearsay statement that she intends to meet and discuss a matter with a business associate constitute evidence in a civil case that the meeting took place and that the matter was discussed?
- Does the Federal Rule of Evidence 407 exclusion of subsequent remedial measure:
- Apply to factual information in a post-injury report prepared by a distributor of the product, when the information supports a recommendation in the same report to recall the product?
- Apply to measures undertaken at the direction of a government agency?
For more information about the Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition, please contact the 2009 Prince Competition Coordinator, Rebecca Sacks-Oppenheim at (718) 780-7970 or prince.competition@brooklaw.edu.
Read about last year’s 2007 Prince Competition.
Back to top

|
|